About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the senate majority leader, harry reid attacked it on tuesday. >> everyone has to look at the source where it comes from. a source that has brought up a lot of non-issues. i've told you how i feel about the source of this stuff. and it's really, very very typical for the source. >> bill: now, all fair minded americans will presume that senator menendez is innocent until proven guilty of any allegations, but in general, exploiting children is the worst possible scenario for any politician, and the evidence shows that he did not disclose about the jet trips, but that's a trifle compared to the under age always. they held it back for some time. but now, the story has advanced far beyond the rumor stage, and as an american, i hope that he had nothing to do with exploiting children, i hope. fox's news hour with laura ingram, and how do you read this. >> well, if the allegations are true, he's going to have to step down. >> bill: he'll go to prison. >> yes, we're talking about politics for a moment. and harry reid, i understand that he wants to write off anything that the daily caller is saying,
about politics for a moment. and harry reid, i understand that he wants to write off anything that the daily caller is saying, and they backed off everything said for the day, but basically, they're punching on anything said before senator menendez. when you're a public official and elected, six, seven weeks ago by the people of your state to represent them, you have to hold yourself out as someone worthy of the trust of the public. and the late payments for the jet trips not withstanding, he violated senate ethics rules by not reporting those as significant gifts, and that in and of itself is serious. >> bill: he took the trips in august of 2010, and reimbursed the government in january of 2013, after the daily caller exposed the story. >> what it reminds me of a little bit is what happened with the john edwards story. of course one publication, the national enquirer was covering it, and pretty much every stayed away from it, and poo pooed it, and a significant time later, the national inquirer was right and they had done good reporting. i don't know the background of the rep
the american public when he can go one mile down and talk to harry reid. you know, look, we're talking about 85 billion dollars. we borrow 85 billion dollars every 25 days. all we're doing is taking what we cut for a month in less than a month. >> greta: did you agree with tom coburn that the crisis is made up? >> by far. we have more revenue in 2013 projected. what the president asks for, to take more from the american taxpayers, if you can't take the cut how can we put this place back in order. and many go back in 2009. were planes not flying there, were people not getting their first responders then? no, why is the president creating the hysteria when really we should get this government under control? >> why is he doing that, if he's doing that. >> because he's never gotten off the campaign trail and that's what's wrong, why i call him the road show president. the saddest part about all of this, and the divided government you achieve big things. you can't achieve something if he's out campaigning. you've got to be able to govern and lead. and we're willing to work with him, but he's got to
about gun control legislation on the hill this time around. folks like senate majority leader harry reid who has been a long time progun ownership advocate under a lot of pressure to get some of these measures whether it's the one by senator dianne feinstein or others who are not viewed as restrictive what do you is you stall and you hope. the senate is good at doing. is not doing stuff. the hope for senate majority leader reid and other nra backed or progun democrats in the u.s. senate is play for time, have this work itself out. we see the bipartisan offer from joe manchin democrat from pennsylvania and republican from illinois background checks that you hope that some compromise position emerges. you can take ahold of that and get away from the issue. because i am sure that harry reid, ahead of having so many red state democrats up for re-election in 2014, is he not interested in doing a gun ban of any kind. i can't think that he would be because it would be so bad for some of his members and chances for remaining majority member. we are looking at the president departing from air for
of questions about whether democratic legislators up to and including harry reid would support what the president wants to do when t comes to gun control. >> that is a good question, jon. in the political calculus that is pretty simple. you have democrats that could be embarrassed if forced take a vote on guns. like assault weapons ban, et cetera. those are in conservative states or in the house in conservative districts may have been carried by mitt romney and they're holding on by a thread. we're talking about whether or not senate majority leader harry reid is willing to put those democrats at risk and also then put at risk control of the senate because republicans have fewer people who were running, who will be running in 14 and fewer people who are at risk. though again, the dynamic is very difficult for the democrats and here's a vote that would expose them to great political costs. jon: let's take, let's take another listen at one of the things the president said last night. >> and i know you want these job-creating projects in your district. i've seen all those ribbon cuttin
'm renominating them to go through the formal senate process that they never had the first time because harry reid never got them a committee hearing. >> it's starting to seem just a bit like the president doesn't have much regard for that co-equal branch of government stuff or checks and balances. he has a very specific agenda at work here, and that is to move straight ahead with the nominations of sharon block, robert griffin. there's only one, the chairman, mark, mark gaston pierce who is lawfully confirmed by the united states senate, it's-- >> supposed to be five on there. right now three, only one is whom is there legitimately. >> after the d.c. court of appeals rule it's unconstitutional, which in the views of many makes all of tfofe decisions they've made over 200, not valid and have to be reconsidered at some point by a lawfully-- >> if the supreme court reverses the lower court they're back in business. right now the only decision standing and they haven't officially appealed it, nlrb, is the one saying you do not belong on that board and you never had the authority to appoint them, pres
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)